Tillerson says US should block China from new islands

China hasn't taken any really aggressive stance against any of their neighbours. Unlike Russia which annexed a part of its neighbour and sent troops to the eastern portion of the country. But t he republicans think China is a greater threat than Russia.

 

China and Russia? Why do you care what Russia does? How come it's always wrong for us to get involved in OPB when the republicans do it, but it's A-OK when the dems do it?

China owns our debt, and China costs us oodles of money. Our "unfair" trade agreement with China just exacerbates things. We need to step up and do what is best for OUR country, and THAT is why Trump won the election.

 

Who's crying? A government run by amino acids would be far less intrusive and expensive than the government I have now.

I'll sell 'em the sand. Crappy Chinese sandbars will wash into the Gulf with the first tropical storm.

 

What you're proposing is cause a world war because you don't like China. This world isn't your world. It belongs to everyone.

 

No, that is what you are suggesting by getting involved in Russia's business.

 

Russia annexed a country. That hadn't been done since WW2. China hasn't done anything close to that.

 

Our trade agreements with China hurt OUR economy. What in the hell does Russia have to do with US? How does that affect the United States? Why do you want to get involved in Russia's business?

 

Wow so you're literally putting your economy over the well being over the world

This is why the world hates your country.

 

Your meaning of aggression is laughable. When US forces were fighting far away from their homeland during the Vietnam War and Iraq War, wasn't that aggression? If that was not aggression, what was it?

Man's memory is short. Seventy-two years after World War 2 and sixty-seven years after the Korean War, some Americans have forgotten all about the horrors of war. Perhaps they have played too many computer games every day, and they think that going to war is fun and as exciting as playing computer games like "Counter-Strike".

If you think that China will back down from the South China Sea, you will be caught by surprise like MacArthur on the eve of the Korean War.

The following are excerpts from http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1028568.shtml

(Begin excerpts)
...It is not clear which point, among the many he made, he will prioritize. But it is worth looking at his remarks that China should not be allowed access to the islands, since this is the most radical statement from the US side so far.

China has enough determination and strength to make sure that his rabble rousing will not succeed. Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish.

The US has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories. Probably he just has oil prices and currency rates in his mind as former ExxonMobil CEO.

He also lacks legality. If China is not allowed access to islands it has long controlled, does this also apply to Vietnam and the Philippines? Should the Nansha Islands become a depopulated zone? What does so-called US freedom of navigation around the Nansha Islands mean?

As Trump has yet to be sworn in, China has shown restraint whenever his team members expressed radical views. But the US should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of their threats.

Tillerson's statements regarding the islands in the South China Sea are far from professional. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash...

It is hoped that Tillerson will desire a productive partnership with China more and his harsh words are just coaxing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But no matter what, China will always respond to various US diplomatic maneuvers. (End excerpts)

 

I'm wondering who said anything about going to WAR with China? Who?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh well, boo hoo. We are so sad. NOT.

 

Seizing disputed land and building a military base on it is really aggressive. Claiming possession of international waters is really aggressive. Sailing an aircraft through the Taiwan Strait to menace a neighbor is really aggressive.

Both countries pose security threats to the United States, but as ChrisL correctly pointed out China poses a greater economic threat to our country. Russia isn't manipulating its currency to undercut our economy, ripping off American intellectual property rights and stealing industrial secrets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

You're kiddin right?

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

 

how is unfair trade, corporation send the jobs there, ppl buy stuff made in china, no one force them to do it. ppl seem always point fault at other while not taking responsibility of their own action. next will be india, their labor is even cheaper than china.

 

US claims the northwest passage is international waters even though it's clearly in between Canadian land. Therefore Canadian sovereign territory. Are you saying US is being aggressive in telling a sovereign country what is and what isn't their territory?

 

wait, Seizing which land? ALL the island that china currently build upon was in their control since 50s. sailing across Taiwan strait, didn't we call that freedom of navigation, they never get into 12nm of Taiwan water right.
manipulating currency, true if this was 2005, now china try to prop up its currency for consumer base economy

 

Trump campaigned on bringing the military home and stop being the worlds policeman. And now his people are setting up WW3 with China.

 

Well said. Fortunately for Canadians, Trump is not going to build a wall on US northern borders, otherwise he will order Canada to pay for the wall.

 

No, helping South Vietnam defend against Soviet Union and China is not an agression. And removing an Iraqi dictator, who used chemical weapons against civilians and occupied Quwait and attacked Israel, under legitimate suspicion of developing WMD is not an agression.

 

Chemical weapons that the USA gave them so they could wipe out the Kurds. Should the US president at the time (George Bush senior) be killed just like Saddam?

 

you do know the case was filed by phillippine in 2012, and NOW they don't even care, cause they are too busy taking china $$$. oh btw phillippine already establish varies fishing right with china at the disputed location. not because china backoff, because phillippine realize they can benefit greatly if cozy up to china.

 

Oh yeah, economically we would be in quite a state. Most of our consumer goods would be gone in a flash, and I'm pretty sure our currency would be toast as well. China would be in a similar state, as would everyone else eventually, I think.

Anyway, I think it's silly to talk about major states like the US and China going to war today. We really need to get past that, because this is the nuclear age, and damn it, it's about time we grew up as a species anyway.

 

Well said.

- - - Updated - - -

Well said.

 

Well said.

 

Nobody is talking about going to war with anyone except for the nutty liberals.

 

Iraqi court has sentenced Saddam to death. If US court decides the same about G.Bush sr. so it would be.